Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Configs for IconicUni font #11

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Mar 19, 2012
Merged

Configs for IconicUni font #11

merged 1 commit into from
Mar 19, 2012

Conversation

puzrin
Copy link
Contributor

@puzrin puzrin commented Mar 14, 2012

  1. Joined IconicFill + IconicStroke
  2. Fixed symbols code, where possible, to new one from unicode 6.1 standard
  3. Conflicting codes (after merge & remap) resolved by addind +0x80 to Stroke chars. That changed only few chars in PUA.

@puzrin
Copy link
Contributor Author

puzrin commented Mar 14, 2012

Sorry for wrong name in commit lines. All internals are correct. I'm trying to improve several OFL fonts, and had to sleep a bit more :) .

@somerandomdude
Copy link
Owner

Ah, I see - so a separate font face that merges all of the icons into one font. I'm still conflicted on the mapping structure for duplicate icons (with different styles). I wrote about the subject here: http://somerandomdude.com/2012/01/31/font-embedding-icons-the-right-way/. Having one document icon map to the Unicode document glyph and another map to an unused glyph seems semantically inappropriate.

I would prefer to have this unified font exist in a fork. I think a unified font is useful, but I strongly support proper Unicode mapping when possible. To me, this seems akin to putting regular and bold weights of the letter 'a' in one font where the regular weight was mapped to 'a' and the other was mapped to a character in the private range.

@puzrin
Copy link
Contributor Author

puzrin commented Mar 14, 2012

  1. Imho, semantic criteria is not appliable here. If we are speaking about bold/italic - all font symbols differs. In your case, only a small count. It's more "different symbols", than "different style". I think, the proper way is just to request adding new glyphs to unicode standard. And it's a normal pracrtice to add "not existing" symbols in PUA until that happens.
  2. In practice, it's more convenient (for users) to have all icons in one file too.
  3. Thechnically, i can maintain separate repo. But design is not my business, and i'd prefer to return results in upstream. I don't ask to remove Stroke/Fill. Just to add third variand. It will not cost you anything. Iconnic font files still have some bugs, and it's much more easy to fix those in single place.

somerandomdude added a commit that referenced this pull request Mar 19, 2012
Configs for IconicUni font
@somerandomdude somerandomdude merged commit 8db4dbf into somerandomdude:master Mar 19, 2012
@somerandomdude
Copy link
Owner

OK, let's give this a shot and see what people think. Thanks again for all the help.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants